Forest Park is the crown jewel of Portland parks and arguably one of the greatest city parks in the United States. Where else can you run a single trail of 30 miles in length? What other city park has a native cutthroat trout run? I've traveled the United States and can't think of another park with so much to offer just steps from the front doors of thousands. The ease of access also means the park is used by thousands of people everyday for hiking, running, mountain biking and horseback riding. There is something for everyone.

Recently there has been a push by bicycling advocates to open up additional trails in Forest Park for use by mountain bikers. While specific trails have not been discussed other than the Maple Trail, it is clear from those seeking greater access that the Firelanes are not enough. The question is - should bikes be given greater access to the trails?

I grew up in Northwest Portland and can call myself a pioneer when it comes to biking on the trails. It has been thirty years since that first descent of the Wildwood Trail from Holman Lane to Lower Macleay and then down to the Thurman bridge on my single speed BMX bike, but I can remember the thrill of flying down the trail sans helmet and hoping that the ranger wasn't nearby (yes, they actually had a ranger on duty in the park). The park on those summer days was pretty empty. There might have been the occasional hike or runner, but the use of the park was much smaller than it is today, so fortunately there were no incidents involving myself and another user.

In 1983 I began running in the park. At that time Leif Erickson was open to vehicular traffic. While traffic on Leif Erickson was light, the trash and vandalism wasn't. Cars were stripped and left along the road, tires haphazardly tossed, belongings piled high. In 1984 Leif Erickson was closed and the problems decreased. Suddenly runners had an 11 mile long road all to themselves. Out past the 8 mile mark you might find horses, but a majority of the use was runners and hikers. Everyone coexisted and the road was in great shape - smooth.

Kelly JohnsonSight lines are an important part of trail safety.As the 90s progressed there was increased use of the park by mountain bikers. At first there were no limitations on where they could ride, but as soon became apparent, bikers and trail users were in conflict. Bikes on Leif Erickson were fine - there was and still is - ample room for all types of users to be on the trail together at the same time. Wildwood, Alder, Dogwood and all the other trails weren't fine. They are narrow and do not provide sight lines which would warn a hiker of a bike coming toward them or vice-versa. So, the trails were made off-limits to the bikers while the Firelanes and Leif Erickson were approved for use by bikers.

The safety of park users is paramount and this is evident in the current restrictions. Closing the trails to bikes greatly reduced the threat of a serious accident involving a biker and a hiker. While it took away some opportunities for bikers, it also greatly reduced the conflict between bikers and other users of the park. Bikers were no longer seen as a threat to come speeding down a trail only to get tangled in a dog leash resulting in an injured pet, biker or both. Further, the trails remained in relatively excellent condition whereas Leif Erickson and the firelanes became more and more rough and eroded.

So, here we are over a decade later and some are calling for opening the trails to bikes. I'm sorry, but first of all the safety of park users is still paramount, so the needs of a few should not take precedence over the safety of everyone. Further, why make the change? I appreciate that there are sections of the park people would like to ride but that doesn't mean they should get to. Currently the trails see a lot of use and opening them to bikes would mean even more use and more erosion and damage - for those curious about the damage just take a hike up Firelane 1 or Firelane 3 and look at the ruts. Then compare those ruts to the Wildwood trail. There is a huge difference.

Not a single argument has been advanced which can overcome the safety of trail users. The fact that bikers pay property taxes which are used to operate the park is weak. There are thousands who never use the park yet pay those same property taxes. Being an "environmental steward" does not mean you should receive a pass to use the park and put others in fear of being hurt by a bicycle speeding down the trail. As for setting aside the trails for use at certain times of the day by bikers (the prime time for use is post-work on weekdays and sunrise to sunset on the weekends) you would have a majority (hikers/runners) clamoring for access granted to a minority (bikers) and if you were to decide that bikes were allowed on certain trails from say 2-4pm weekdays you would surely get opposition to this because many bikers would be unable to use the trails due to being at work.

Having grown up in Forest Park and seeing how the use of the park has been managed I can see no reason to open up a single trail to bikes beyond those which are now open. The current list does not put the safety of park users at substantial risk and it minimizes the damage to the trails by limiting the scope of activity. This is not about not wanting to share as some claim, it is about minimizing damage to the forest and people.